Understanding contexts: how explanatory theories can help.

OBJECTIVE: To rethink the nature and roles of context in ways that help improvers implement effective, sustained improvement interventions in healthcare quality and safety. DESIGN: Critical analysis of existing concepts of context; synthesis of those concepts into a framework for the construction of explanatory theories of human environments, including healthcare systems. DATA SOURCES: Published literature in improvement science, as well as in social, organization, and management sciences. Relevant content was sought by iteratively building searches from reference lists in relevant documents. RESULTS: Scientific thought is represented in both causal and explanatory theories. Explanatory theories are multi-variable constructs used to make sense of complex events and situations; they include basic operating principles of explanation, most importantly: transferring new meaning to complex and confusing phenomena; separating out individual components of an event or situation; unifying the components into a coherent construct (model); and adapting that construct to fit its intended uses. Contexts of human activities can be usefully represented as explanatory theories of peoples' environments; they are valuable to the extent they can be translated into practical changes in behaviors. Healthcare systems are among the most complex human environments known. Although no single explanatory theory adequately represents those environments, multiple mature theories of human action, taken together, can usually make sense of them. Current mature theories of context include static models, universal-plus-variable models, activity theory and related models, and the FITT framework (Fit between Individuals, Tasks, and Technologies). Explanatory theories represent contexts most effectively when they include basic explanatory principles. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare systems can usefully be represented in explanatory theories. Improvement interventions in healthcare quality and safety are most likely to bring about intended and sustained changes when improvers use explanatory theories to align interventions with the host systems into which they are being introduced.

Implementation and de-implementation: two sides of the same coin?

Avoiding low value care received increasing attention in many countries, as with the Choosing Wisely campaign and other initiatives to abandon care that wastes resources or delivers no benefit to patients. While an extensive literature characterises approaches to implementing evidence-based care, we have limited understanding of the process of de-implementation, such as abandoning existing low value practices. To learn more about the differences between implementation and de-implementation, we explored the literature and analysed data from two published studies (one implementation and one de-implementation) by the same orthopaedic surgeons. We defined 'leaders' as those orthopaedic surgeons who implemented, or de-implemented, the target processes of care and laggards as those who did not. Our findings suggest that leaders in implementation share some characteristics with leaders in de-implementation when comparing them with laggards, such as more open to new evidence, younger and less time in clinical practice. However, leaders in de-implementation and implementation differed in some other characteristics and were not the same persons. Thus, leading in implementation or de-implementation may depend to some degree on the type of intervention rather than entirely reflecting personal characteristics. De-implementation seemed to be hampered by motivational factors such as department priorities, and economic and political factors such as cost-benefit considerations in care delivery, whereas organisational factors were associated only with implementation. The only barrier or facilitator common to both implementation and de-implementation consisted of outcome expectancy (ie, the perceived net benefit to patients). Future studies need to test the hypotheses generated from this study and improve our understanding of differences between the processes of implementation and de-implementation in the people who are most likely to lead (or resist) these efforts.

Women in Academic Medicine Leadership: Has Anything Changed in 25 Years?

Over the past 25 years, the number of women graduating from medical schools in the United States and Canada has increased dramatically to the point where roughly equal numbers of men and women are graduating each year. Despite this growth, women continue to face challenges in moving into academic leadership positions. In this Commentary, the authors share lessons learned from their own careers relevant to women's careers in academic medicine, including aspects of leadership, recruitment, editorship, promotion, and work-life balance. They provide brief synopses of current literature on the personal and social forces that affect women's participation in academic leadership roles. They are persuaded that a deeper understanding of these realities can help create an environment in academic medicine that is generally more supportive of women's participation, and that specifically encourages women in medicine to take on academic leadership positions.

SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process.

Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasises the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognising that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (http://www.squire-statement.org).

Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence 2.0: revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process.

Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this article, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts, and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of health care: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve health care, recognizing that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org).

[SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process]. / Normas para la excelencia en los reportes sobre mejoras de la calidad (SQUIRE 2.0): guías de publicación revisadas a partir de un proceso de consenso detallado.

Since the publication of Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semi-structured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts, and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognizing that they can be complex and multi-dimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org).

Desde la publicación de las guías llamadas Normas para la Excelencia en los Reportes sobre la Mejora de la Calidad (SQUIRE 1.0, Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence), en 2008, la ciencia en ese campo ha avanzado considerablemente. En este manuscrito se describe el desarrollo de SQUIRE 2.0 y sus componentes clave. La revisión se realizó entre 2012 y 2015 utilizando: (1) entrevistas semiestructuradas y grupos focales para evaluar SQUIRE 1.0 además de la retroalimentación de un grupo directivo internacional, (2) dos reuniones de consenso cara a cara para desarrollar borradores provisionales, y (3) pruebas piloto con los autores y un período de comentarios públicos. SQUIRE 2.0 hace hincapié en el reporte de tres componentes clave de los esfuerzos sistemáticos por mejorar la calidad, el valor y la seguridad de la asistencia sanitaria: el uso de la teoría formal e informal en la planificación, implementación y evaluación de los trabajos de mejora; el contexto en que se realiza el trabajo; y el estudio de la o las intervenciones. SQUIRE 2.0 está diseñado para reportar la gama de métodos utilizados para mejorar la atención sanitaria, reconociendo que esto puede ser complejo y multidimensional. Proporciona una base común para compartir estos hallazgos en la literatura académica (www.squire-statement.org).

Squire 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process.

Since the publication of Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts, and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes the reporting of 3 key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of health care: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve health care, recognizing that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org).

SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process.

Since the publication of Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using 1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group; 2) 2 face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts and 3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes the reporting of 3 key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognizing that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org).

SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised Publication Guidelines From a Detailed Consensus Process.

Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semi-structured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts, and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognizing that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (http://www.squire-statement.org).

SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process.

In the past several years, the science of health care improvement has advanced considerably. In this article, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts, and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes 3 key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of health care: formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve health care, recognizing that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org).

SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised Publication Guidelines from a Detailed Consensus Process.

Since the publication of Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015, using 1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group; 2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts; and 3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of health care: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve health care, recognizing that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org).

The SQUIRE Guidelines: an evaluation from the field, 5†years post release.

BACKGROUND: The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) Guidelines were published in 2008 to increase the completeness, precision and accuracy of published reports of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare. Since that time, the field has expanded. We asked people from the field to evaluate the Guidelines, a novel approach to a first step in revision. METHODS: Evaluative design using focus groups and semi-structured interviews with 29 end users and an advisory group of 18 thinkers in the field. Sampling of end users was purposive to achieve variation in work setting, geographic location, area of expertise, manuscript writing experience, healthcare improvement and research experience. RESULTS: Study participants reported that SQUIRE was useful in planning a healthcare improvement project, but not as helpful during writing because of redundancies, uncertainty about what was important to include and lack of clarity in items. The concept "planning the study of the intervention" (item 10) was hard for many participants to understand. Participants varied in their interpretation of the meaning of item 10b "the concept of the mechanism by which changes were expected to occur". Participants disagreed about whether iterations of an intervention should be reported. Level of experience in writing, knowledge of the science of improvement and the evolving meaning of some terms in the field are hypothesised as the reasons for these findings. CONCLUSIONS: The original SQUIRE Guidelines help with planning healthcare improvement work, but are perceived as complicated and unclear during writing. Key goals of the revision will be to clarify items where conflict was identified and outline the key components necessary for complete reporting of improvement work.